If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Blah. I might have a slightly more up to date version I could post somewhere later if there is still interest in it. The jist of it was going through the SRD and buffing the mundane "Epic Feats" and making them available pre-epic and rolling most of the Improved/Greater versions of feats together but making their effect BaB dependent.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

What about duskblade, they only go up to 5th level spells but have a ton of them and full bab. Would they get to keep their full bab, casting, and get huge jump in feat count? That type of benefit might be enough to bump them up a tier.
On the flip side it also gimps dread necromancers, their standard shtick for the first 8 levels is now a lot less functional.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

A system of punishment and limitations will only feel worse for players;
Casters deserve to have their power stripped, but unfortunately that will be almost impossible to fly in an established medium where a good chunk of people enjoy playing casters.

Also, too many feats are tied to the assumption of character level; How are you going to handle feats like Item Creation if a caster will only get them at level 2, 4 and then every 4 levels after that?

AKA Wren.
I also homebrew a bunch of stuff and run heavily customized games; pretty much explicitly pathfinder.
...I may like SoP/SoM too much, and may hate PoW too much.
If you read this you're cursed to die unless you check out my hombrew, The Vagabond, and comment on it sincerely. (100% of people who read this and don't comment will eventually die, just saying.)

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky

Granted, part of that is because WR Tactics is worth more all on its own than half of the swordsage class

Part of it is also that they have bar none the worst recovery mechanic of any of the classes. Warblades and Crusaders can reasonably expect to use the same maneuver twice in a fight in a way that Swordsages can't.

Originally Posted by liquidformat

What about duskblade, they only go up to 5th level spells but have a ton of them and full bab. Would they get to keep their full bab, casting, and get huge jump in feat count? That type of benefit might be enough to bump them up a tier.
On the flip side it also gimps dread necromancers, their standard shtick for the first 8 levels is now a lot less functional.

Yes, "magic user who fights" is supposed to be a supported archetype. There are like three different base classes dedicated to it, and god knows how many PrCs and ACFs. This is part of why nerfs don't really work as a balance solution.

Originally Posted by Archiplex

A system of punishment and limitations will only feel worse for players;

This is true. Trying to fix an imbalance by making things worse is not fun. People dislike punishments more than they like rewards. If your problem is that martials are too weak, buff martials. The idea of giving a feat for every point of BAB is an entirely reasonable one. It's not going to do much, because feats are mostly bad, but it's a solution that doesn't make anyone feel bad.

Casters deserve to have their power stripped

I don't particularly think this is true. Certainly, there are things casters can do which are too good (polymorph, planar binding) which should be nerfed. But there are also things that casters can do which are not good enough (blasting), or which are reasonably balanced (BFC, buffs, SoL, most spells people cast in combat), or which interact with an unfinished minigame (all the wealth creation spells). As a result, attempts to nerf "casters" are almost inherently misguided. You can make a convincing case that the Wizard needs nerfs, particularly if that means "changes to specific spells". It is much harder to make that case for the Warmage or the Healer.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by Cosi

This is true. Trying to fix an imbalance by making things worse is not fun. People dislike punishments more than they like rewards. If your problem is that martials are too weak, buff martials. The idea of giving a feat for every point of BAB is an entirely reasonable one. It's not going to do much, because feats are mostly bad, but it's a solution that doesn't make anyone feel bad.

I don't particularly think this is true. Certainly, there are things casters can do which are too good (polymorph, planar binding) which should be nerfed. But there are also things that casters can do which are not good enough (blasting), or which are reasonably balanced (BFC, buffs, SoL, most spells people cast in combat), or which interact with an unfinished minigame (all the wealth creation spells). As a result, attempts to nerf "casters" are almost inherently misguided. You can make a convincing case that the Wizard needs nerfs, particularly if that means "changes to specific spells". It is much harder to make that case for the Warmage or the Healer.

Originally Posted by Drysdan

THIS!!!!

THIS TOO!!!!

AND THIS!

I like Cosi. I think we could be friends

All I have to say is that your gaming groups must be a group of power gamers. That's not bad, just not something I care for.

I dont think the game, as a whole, is balanced around the power level that a highly optimized wizard brings to the table. I do think that the game, again as a whole, is balanced around a party of moderately optimized different character filling different roles. Bringing classes on the outliers of that spectrum closer to that in-game balance point will come in the form of enhancements to the lower spectrum and penalties to the higher spectrum.

If you honestly think that the only way to balance the game is to buff the lower end until it is the same as the higher end, this isn't the thread for you and I encourage you to move on. This started as a thread to discuss a change that would inherently limit more powerful classes while simultaneously enhancing less powerful classes. By refusing to limit the more powerful classes, you dont really hold anything of value to a conversation about compromise in a middle ground that involves both buffing and nerfing.

Originally Posted by Cosi

If your problem is that martials are too weak, buff martials.

You've said this a lot so I'll target it specifically. I think that non-magical characters are distinctly less powerful. I also think magical characters are distinctly too powerful within the parameters of the game. I think that non-magical characters need to be enhanced and magical characters need to be restricted. I dont think it is appropriate in any game system for there to exist a class that can do literally everything and has no need for a party. It undermines the fabric of a party-based rpg. Each class needs to have limitations, otherwise 3.5e happens.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat

All I have to say is that your gaming groups must be a group of power gamers.

No. That is not the case. If we were power gamers, we'd be taking the dogmatic stance that neither Fighters nor Wizards be changed. The debate here is about how to address the power imbalance that manifestly exists.

I dont think the game, as a whole, is balanced around the power level that a highly optimized wizard brings to the table.

I genuinely don't understand how you can believe this. Lets take a look at some CR 14 monsters. The Trumpet Archon casts as a 14th level Cleric and is also an Archon. How do you look at that and say that it indicates that casters aren't the expected balance point? A Mature Adult Black Dragon has more than one and a half times the HD of a 14th level martial character, HD that are individually better than any printed class, a seven-attack full attack, flight, a AoE that can kill the Fighter in a couple of hits, and enough casting to potentially counter some of the few tactics a Barbarian has that beat it at all (not to mention treasure). How do you look at that and say that it indicates that martials are the expected balance point?

The expected balance point of the game is not a philosophical question. It is empirical one, and the evidence is clear -- monsters pay no substantial penalty for level appropriate casting, and monsters that are expected to fight physically have abilities far beyond their PC counterparts. We can argue about whether that implies a balance point we like, but it is very clear that the expectations placed on characters are categorically closer to Wizards than Fighters.

I do think that the game, again as a whole, is balanced around a party of moderately optimized different character filling different roles.

So to be clear, the difference between a "highly optimized" Wizard and a "moderately optimized" Wizard is that the "moderately optimized" one gets one less feat every twelve levels? Not, you know, planar binding or polymorph. Just one feat.

By refusing to limit the more powerful classes, you dont really hold anything of value to a conversation about compromise in a middle ground that involves both buffing and nerfing.

I'm not against nerfs. Literally every time I've ever posted in any thread like this I've suggest that some spells need to be nerfed. I've done that in this post (albeit somewhat sarcastically). My problem is that you're blindly nerfing, and that you're nerfing something that doesn't need to be nerfed. A Wizard who doesn't abuse planar binding and instead just casts spells in combat to do things in combat is balanced. The class doesn't need substantial nerfs, a list of spells that fits on a single page does.

That said, "this direction is unproductive" is absolutely useful advice to give. If you are describing your problem as "I want martials to do cool things", and your proposal is "martials get marginally more of the non-cool things they currently do and casters are marginally less interesting" it is absolutely appropriate for people to say "not only is that plan bad, it doesn't solve your problem".

I dont think it is appropriate in any game system for there to exist a class that can do literally everything and has no need for a party.

Fortunately, such a class does not exist in 3e. It is categorically false that you can make a single Wizard which defeats the same encounters as a part of comparably powerful characters do (without using spells I also think need to be changed), and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Each class needs to have limitations, otherwise 3.5e happens.

3e is probably the most popular edition of D&D, and it is the only one to have a retroclone that outlasted the subsequent edition (Pathfinder). I know you meant this to sound like a bad thing, but it's like capping off your argument for why Disney shouldn't do something by saying "and then you get the Marvel Cinematic Universe" or telling Apple that their plan is a bad idea because "and then you get the iPhone".

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat

If you honestly think that the only way to balance the game is to buff the lower end until it is the same as the higher end,

I'm pretty sure I said in my earlier post quite the opposite of this: You can add all the feats to your martials that you want, but they're still a lower power class. That doesn't make them inferior to play. It makes them fill a different role in the party. I've never heard from actual players at the actual table that they felt useless next to a caster. Most of the time they're having a great time.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

You misunderstood my point, which is fine, but I said A highly optimized wizard is not the balancing point. A moderately optimized PARTY is the expected balance point.

...but it is very clear that the expectations placed on characters are categorically closer to Wizards than Fighters.

I don't think the balance point is placed on individual classes or characters at all. I think it is placed on parties.

So to be clear, the difference between a "highly optimized" Wizard and a "moderately optimized" Wizard is that the "moderately optimized" one gets one less feat every twelve levels? Not, you know, planar binding or polymorph. Just one feat.

Not at all, I think it is a component of the issue. This is one piece of a greater issue that includes poorly written spells which also need to be addressed, that was beyond the scope of this topic though. Feats alone aren't fixing every one of the multitude of issues that plague the system. It doea, however, address the fact that every martial character is feat starved and can usually only barely eeke out acceptable mid-power builds unless a solar system's worth of hoops are jumped through while subsequently making more fortunate, overly bloated classes think harder about their options.

I'm not against nerfs... ... A Wizard who doesn't abuse planar binding and instead just casts spells in combat to do things in combat is balanced. The class doesn't need substantial nerfs, a list of spells that fits on a single page does.

I understand that you're not against nerfs, but the issue goes beyond just spells. A level 1 conjuration specialist can trade their familiar for an immediate action "NOPE" card. At level 1. Everyone else gets... what? It goes beyond just the spells that are an issue. It continues into the class features of the druid and the mere existence of Divine Metamagic as well. Because of DMM, a cleric fully replaces a fighter, just because. That, from a balance and design perspective, is wrong and should not happen. If a game is based on party centric activities, you should not design said game and allow classes to outclassed another classes supposed niche, especially without providing those other classes with literally anything else to do but that niche. The imbalance goes beyond a page of poorly written spells.

That said, "this direction is unproductive" is absolutely useful advice to give. If you are describing your problem as "I want martials to do cool things", and your proposal is "martials get marginally more of the non-cool things they currently do and casters are marginally less interesting" it is absolutely appropriate for people to say "not only is that plan bad, it doesn't solve your problem".

I had already conceded that though. I had already thanked for the input before you swooped in and continued badgering it. Also, what you've been saying isn't my intent. Again, this isn't the only fix I was considering, and admitidly I didn't do a good job explaining that, but I did explain it. Feats are a resource every character should want. Due to the innate power and versatility of magic, I feel as though spellcasters should get fewer feats due to not even really needing them to succeed. Non-spellcasters need more of them, partially because martial feats are bloated with useless prerequisites and as opposed to rewriting everything, I am opting for more opportunities it is to get said feats.

Fortunately, such a class does not exist in 3e. It is categorically false that you can make a single Wizard which defeats the same encounters as a part of comparably powerful characters do (without using spells I also think need to be changed), and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

Thanks to divinations, a wizard (or other full casting class) can indeed do everything. It's kind of what literally everyone talks about. Not to mention ice assasins, simulacra, etc. If they, themselves, can't do the thing, they have a spell that summons, creates, or otherwise augments them to do the ting. Need a lock picked? Got a spell for that. Nobody with trapfinding? Got a spell for that. Enemy immune to magical damage? Got a spell to make me a fighter. And any given wizard can, and likely will, know all of those. Those are no fault of the fighter, rogue, barbarian, or other similarly non-magical classes, that is a problem with the existence of low level, easily accessible magic that makes the game not fun to play for a lot of people that I know. This isn't representative of the community at large, but a large portion of the 18 hobby shops I've played at in 3 countries and 7 states.

3e is probably the most popular edition of D&D, and it is the only one to have a retroclone that outlasted the subsequent edition (Pathfinder). I know you meant this to sound like a bad thing, but it's like capping off your argument for why Disney shouldn't do something by saying "and then you get the Marvel Cinematic Universe" or telling Apple that their plan is a bad idea because "and then you get the iPhone".

I'm not arguing the legacy or popularity of 3e. Everyone who plays 3e has something to complain about though. Most of the time that is balance. To compare Apple's iPhones to this statement just misses the point I was trying to make. Lets say Apple comes out with a computer process g system that involves 11 parts. Of these parts you have 4 devices designed to brute force hack into other devices, 3 devices that are designed to fill various roles that range from brute force hacking to subtle intelligence collection or deceiving other devices, 1 that is programmable for one role and it is capable of filling that role very well, but can't be changed once programed, and 3 devices that do everything the other 8 devices do and then some. Why would customers purchase the entire suite of devices when they can just purchase one of the 3 that make the other 8 useless? When Apple moves on to make thir next run of devices, what is something they should take away from the first run? That's a more accurate comparison or anology using apple (or any other computer company).

@Drysdan: Google search or look around these forums. Plenty of people have posted "Help my X, the party [insert caster] is way stonger" or similar. There are plenty of scenarios where non-casters have felt useless or overshadowed by casters and have come asking for help.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat

If you honestly think that the only way to balance the game is to buff the lower end until it is the same as the higher end, this isn't the thread for you and I encourage you to move on. This started as a thread to discuss a change that would inherently limit more powerful classes while simultaneously enhancing less powerful classes. By refusing to limit the more powerful classes, you don't really hold anything of value to a conversation about compromise in a middle ground that involves both buffing and nerfing.

The problem is your 'nerfing' and 'buffing' of giving mundanes more feats and spell casters less feats is fallacious. If you make a level 20 Wizard with no feats from number of hd and a level 20 Fighter who gains a feat at each hd, guess who is the more powerful character. I will give you a hint, it still isn't the fighter, heck it is questionable if you have even narrowed the gap. The problem is largely that feats are not powerful enough to make up for the difference in class features, fighters don't suffer from a lack of feats they suffer from a lack of class features and feats available to straight fighters have already proven that they are in no way enough to narrow that gap. Your solution is like throwing a bunch of band-aids at a person who's leg was chopped off while taking band-aids away from someone that has no injuries. Sure the person with no injuries could use the band-aids eventually but they don't particularly need them. While the band-aids can barely slow down the bleeding much less stop it from the person missing a leg...

So while I agree that mundanes need help and I like getting more feats, also tier 1 and tier 2 classes could stand to have their ceiling lowered, taking away their feats doesn't do much to change the differences. Also there is more than one way to skin this cat, rather than adding more feats you can just make them better, one way is by getting rid of feat taxes such as only needing Two-weapon Fighting as a feat, by adding dex and bab requirements to the original feat to gain further iterative attacks. You can also use this combining to make them more powerful for certain classes, here is an example:

Weapon Focus now is combined with greater weapon focus so you add another point of attack bonus once you hit 8 bab. A fighter who takes this feat receives the benefits of Weapon Specialization at fighter 4, of greater weapon focus at fighter 6, of weapon mastery at level 8, of Greater Weapon Specialization at fighter 10, and of Weapon Supremacy at level 12. A character with a special feature allowing them to stack levels of other classes with fighter for the purpose of qualifying for fighter feats also gains this progression based on their effective fighter level. By making this change you have made weapon focus much more powerful, reduced needless feat taxes, incentivized using a mundane class, and using feats that let other mundanes gain benefits from stacking their levels with fighter.

This can easily be done with other feats too. Lets take above mentioned Two-weapon fighting, we combine it with multiweapon fighting and the iteratives of both, so now if you remove some of the ambiguous nature of the two feats interactions with each other and a character with this feats gains an extra attack with each iterative as long as they meet the dex threshold. now for the incentiving, by adding in the bonuses gained by two-weapon defense if you take this feat as a fighter or receive it from ranger levels and explicitly let ranger and fighter levels (maybe some prcs like tempest too) stack to determine shield bonus. If that isn't a big enough bonus for taking mundanes maybe increase the defense bonuses gained, or add reflex saves or something.

The next thing that would be helpful is looking at homebrew feat and or PRC creation. To go along with two weapon fighting maybe making a spell blocker feat, something like the following:

Benefit
A character with Spell Breaker who is targeted by a spell can if they choose use one of their AOO's as an immediate action to strike the spell targeted at them in attempts to break it. The result from their attack roll is used in place of a spell resistance check to block the spell. Due to the brute force of this method as well as the extreme accuracy needed to blocking spells the character takes a penalty to this attack of Y.

Spell Breaker works on any spell that spell resistance is effective on and is applied after touch attacks succeed but before any saves are made.

Special
This feat can not be taken by a character with more than four levels of spell casting(add in wording to restrict binders, warlocks, and whatever else), and is immediately lost with no way to replace or retrain by any character that gains more than 4 levels of spell casting.
(adding max 4th level spell casting to not screw over, paladins, rangers, and hexblades, they deserve nice things too!)

Spell Reflection
Prerequisite
Spell Breaker, BAB +X

Benefit
When a character with spell breaker scores a critical during their spell breaking attempt they instead reflect the spell back onto the caster.

Special
This feat can not be taken by a character with more than four levels of spell casting(add in wording to restrict binders, warlocks, and whatever else), and is immediately lost with no way to replace or retrain by any character that gains more than 4 levels of spell casting.

Benefit
By smashing the ground in front of him a character with ground Smash sends out a wave of earth in a 15' cone in front of him. Anyone caught within this wave must succeed a reflex save or fall prone, the DC of which is equal to the attack roll made by the character initiating the ground smash. Ground smash turns the ground within the 15' cone into difficult terrain, the character does not trigger an AOO by performing a ground Smash.

Special
This feat can not be taken by a character with more than four levels of spell casting(add in wording to restrict binders, warlocks, and whatever else), and is immediately lost with no way to replace or retrain by any character that gains more than 4 levels of spell casting.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

I agree with Cosi, broadly speaking.

I also want to add that I think one of the main goals for a balance fix should be to increase build diversity. Taking away feats (probably the foremost vehicle for character customization!) does the opposite of that.

Originally Posted by Cosi

3e is probably the most popular edition of D&D, and it is the only one to have a retroclone that outlasted the subsequent edition (Pathfinder). I know you meant this to sound like a bad thing, but it's like capping off your argument for why Disney shouldn't do something by saying "and then you get the Marvel Cinematic Universe" or telling Apple that their plan is a bad idea because "and then you get the iPhone".

5e is much more popular than any other edition of D&D (or any other TRPG on the market in general).

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

i honestly don't agree that the idea would solve ANY problem. turning wizards into feat @1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 simply means that they lose out on 1 feat over the course of the game and sometimes the delay will be beneficial to them.

meanwhile you run into the fact that the druid is a 3/4 Bab class so thier feats would be on 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19 overall gaining 1 extra feat over the course a net gain. (though timing may be screwed up for some later feats)

with the cleric a 3/4 Bab class get 1 extra ACF's can make it more powerful. Golarion ACF for cleric boosts them to 1 BaB/lvl. so they now get an extra 4 feats. Duskblade while it can really use some help since it IS a gish in a can get a base 1 Bab/lvl as well. the trade off are the 2 domains which while it is pretty major can be suplemented with PrC and more feats could be worth it for a specific build.

bard 3/4 bab gets 1 extra feat.

sorcerer is the only one that really gets hit hard by this losing 1 feat, having no good Class features other than spellcasting (which is very good) but they can get 8 total feats by using the battle sorcerer ACF to get 3/4 Bab. -1 spell slot -1 spells known; but also gets proficiency in 1 light/1-h martial melee weapon proficiency, light armor proficiency, and cast without ACF in light armor. not the best version but servicable.

Originally Posted by BassoonHero

No, the problem is that the limit one can achieve with physical brute force from a human body is low, very, very, very low, so obviously someone pursuing strength via muscles is not going to get far.

This is certainly true in 3.5, but I don't think that it's an inevitable feature of the fantasy genre. Look at wuxia. Look at mythology. Look at what "peak human" means in the DC universe. I think that "strength via muscles" can do some pretty amazing things if the system allows for it.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky

Still, I try to resist to the temptation to just make all non-magic classes full BAB. Feels like admitting defeat. Should be able to have medium BAB martials with class features to make up for it and still be playable.

Hm. But the OP is suggesting feat progression be tied to BAB. The Rogue was wanting to stack attacks (probably through TWF) to optimize their DPS from Sneak Attack. What are exactly the things they need? Well, Full BAB makes all their attacks hit more often and now it actually gives them the number of bonus feats they need to pick up a few extra attacks per round.

Meanwhile, the monk is in the same boat as the rogue, but they're still talking with the DM about lifting the alignment restrictions so they can take SLT Barbarian dip.

My point is, 3/4 bab martials were already struggling to stay combat relevant for missing full bab and having generally heavier feat taxes that ultimately don't compare with THF anyway.

You better have some stinking good ideas as to how their class features are going to compensate for misding out on extra feats they already desperately need.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by AnimeTheCat

You misunderstood my point, which is fine, but I said A highly optimized wizard is not the balancing point. A moderately optimized PARTY is the expected balance point.

A party is comprised of characters. Talking about the balance point of individual characters in that party just makes things simpler. Frankly, if we are talking about a party as a whole, the situation of "Wizard does everything, Fighter does nothing" should be totally acceptable to you -- that still results in a party that solves an appropriate number of problems. Your point is only coherent if you believe the power of individual characters is relevant.

This is one piece of a greater issue that includes poorly written spells which also need to be addressed, that was beyond the scope of this topic though.

No it's not. Fixing those is a higher priority (in that regardless of what you do with feats, casters are still broken with RAW planar binding), so your assumption should be that they are fixed. And if they are fixed, casters are balanced. If you want to nerf Wizards by reducing the number of feats they get, you need to explain why they're broken specifically for getting the number of feats they do. Why is it impossible to challenge a Wizard who gets Improved Initiative, Extend Spell, and Craft Wondrous Item but possible to challenge one who only gets Improved Initiative and Extend Spell?

It doea, however, address the fact that every martial character is feat starved and can usually only barely eeke out acceptable mid-power builds unless a solar system's worth of hoops are jumped through while subsequently making more fortunate, overly bloated classes think harder about their options.

So it solves an actual issue martials have, but then we also have to make casters worse because ... reasons. "Martials don't get enough feats" is a real problem that deserves a serious solution. Your reason for nerfing casters, on the other hand, is basically spite "they're too good, so anything that makes them less good must be good design". There are lots of solutions in this thread that make martials better without making casters any worse (Fighter Gestalt, feat for every point of BAB). Why not implement one of those? They're more substantive buffs, and they don't make anyone's character less effective.

A level 1 conjuration specialist can trade their familiar for an immediate action "NOPE" card.

Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with feats, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. In any case, while that ability is powerful, it's not as impressive as people usually claim. It's not clear to me that the interpretation where they lose their action entirely is correct, and it's not great against ranged attacks. Also, it's one specific ability so it doesn't necessitate changing the Wizard as a whole any more than iron heart surge is a reason that the Warblade class needs to be changed.

It continues into the class features of the druid and the mere existence of Divine Metamagic as well. Because of DMM, a cleric fully replaces a fighter, just because. That, from a balance and design perspective, is wrong and should not happen.

I could be persuaded that Wild Shape falls under the same kind of broken as polymorph. The fact that the Fighter is outclassed by Persistent divine power or an animal companion seems like more of a problem with the Fighter than those abilities. All divine power does is buff the Cleric's chassis up to the Fighter's. If that's enough to replace the entire Fighter class, that suggests to me that the Fighter class wasn't good enough to begin with. It takes a lot more work to replace e.g. a Warblade.

The imbalance goes beyond a page of poorly written spells.

I didn't say that was all the imbalance. I said that was all the parts of the Wizard that were overpowered. Certainly there are other problems. The Fighter's only class features are feats, and it has no non-combat abilities. But those are problems with classes that aren't the Wizard, and should be fixed by buffing those classes. What possible nerfs can you inflict on the Wizard to give the Fighter relevant non-combat abilities?

Thanks to divinations, a wizard (or other full casting class) can indeed do everything.

Spending some of your spell slots to spend your remaining spell slots more efficiently seems like an entirely reasonable thing to be doing.

Not to mention ice assasins, simulacra, etc.

Yes, let's not mention them, because I already said they needed to be nerfed.

When Apple moves on to make thir next run of devices, what is something they should take away from the first run?

The things that don't measure up to spec. You know, like the Fighter.

Originally Posted by Troacctid

I also want to add that I think one of the main goals for a balance fix should be to increase build diversity. Taking away feats (probably the foremost vehicle for character customization!) does the opposite of that.

Yes. This is something I alluded to earlier. Most caster builds (particularly the optimized ones OP presumably cares about) have several feats they need ASAP, and then can spend their other options on flavor (or simply "less powerful") options. If a Druid gets less feats, she's still taking Greenbound Summoning and Natural Spell -- the two feats every Druid takes. So now the already small difference between Druid builds shrinks even further.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Originally Posted by Pleh

Hm. But the OP is suggesting feat progression be tied to BAB. The Rogue was wanting to stack attacks (probably through TWF) to optimize their DPS from Sneak Attack. What are exactly the things they need? Well, Full BAB makes all their attacks hit more often and now it actually gives them the number of bonus feats they need to pick up a few extra attacks per round.

Meanwhile, the monk is in the same boat as the rogue, but they're still talking with the DM about lifting the alignment restrictions so they can take SLT Barbarian dip.

My point is, 3/4 bab martials were already struggling to stay combat relevant for missing full bab and having generally heavier feat taxes that ultimately don't compare with THF anyway.

You better have some stinking good ideas as to how their class features are going to compensate for misding out on extra feats they already desperately need.

Well, the first of those ideas would be: Don't tie feat progression to BAB

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Ok, so here's what I see in this thread. The OP seems to have two problems. 1: He wants martials to be able to do more and better things. 2: He wants casters not to be able to do as many things as they currently can.

There are a bunch of posts above showing why and how the changing of feats isn't going to do what the OP wants, for either of those. But in his second post, he elaborates on the types of abilities he wants martials to have (ground pounding, leaping tall buildings, etc.) Adding more access to current feats can't do that, since current feats don't offer those abilities. But I agree that martials really should progress higher, and the types of things he mentions are a great start.

So lets shift gears and forget about feats for that purpose. The discussion about reducing the feat tax on chains is a great idea, but not gonna do what the OP seems to want.

I think what he needs is a pretty big rewrite of martial class abilities. Or else feats that add those sorts of powers, but that seems like more power than a feat is meant to have.

As for problem 2, well, I've made it clear that on a whole, I don't agree with that. Some spells and abilities are perhaps too much, particularly when abused, but overall, I'm against nerfs. So I'm not gonna chime in any more on that front.

Re: Tying Feats to BAB

Some people (not me*) like the Frank & K's Tome Series which introduce feats that tie the overall effect to things like skill ranks and BaB.

*I personally think that it's not enough of an addition to be considered a rewrite, so it awkwardly makes normal feats obsolete.

EDIT: It's pretty clear that the thread is steering away from free BaB feats, but Grod_The_Giant already did this in his Giants & Graveyards rewrite:

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Feats

Spoiler

Show

Bonus Feats

Certain feats are granted for free when your Base Attack Bonus reaches a certain level, as shown on the table below. You do not need to meet the normal prerequisites. If you would be granted a feat you already possess, you may instead learn one fighter bonus feat (for which you must meet the prerequisites)

Base Attack Bonus

Free Feats

+1

Combat Expertise

Improved Shield Bash

Improved Unarmed Strike

Power Attack

Precise Shot

Rapid Reload

Quick Draw

+6

Blind Fight

Improved Two-Weapon Fighting* (Two-Weapon Fighting)

Weapon Specialization* (Weapon Focus)

+11

Bounding Assault* (PHB 2) (Spring Attack)

Greater Two-Weapon Fighting* (Two-Weapon Fighting)

Greater Weapon Focus* (Weapon Focus)

Whirlwind Attack

+16

Greater Weapon Specialization* (Weapon Focus)

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting* (Two-Weapon Fighting)

Starred feats are only granted if you already possess the prerequisite feat, listed in parenthesis. If you gain the prerequisite feat at a later date, you are automatically awarded any subsequent feats you would have been granted. In addition, Track and Darkstalker are granted automatically once you have a certain number of skill ranks, as described above.